Remanded

Devidas Suryabhan Kalyankar v. Pratibha Devidas Kalyankar and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2013WP/1190/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal writ petition challenging a judgment in a criminal revision concerning maintenance proceedings dismissed in the absence of the petitioner. The court set aside the/ ongoing revision and remanded it for a hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2011 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Sessions Court for expedited disposal within one month.

Devidas Suryabhan Kalyankar Vs Pratibha Devidas… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri. W.P. No. 1190/12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1190 OF 2012

¶5

Devidas S/o. Suryabhan Kalyankar, Age 36 years, Occu. Labour, R/o. Chandur Bhiswa, Tq. Nandura, Dist. Buldhana, At present R/o : 38/2, Balaji Nagar, Pune, Dist. Pune.

¶6

....Petitioner.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pratibha w/o. Devidas Kalyankar, Age 30 years, Occu. Labour, R/o. Indewadi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

¶9

Shiwani d/o. Devidas Kalyankar, Age 13 years, Occu. Education, R/o. As above.

¶10

Deepak s/o. Devidas Kalyankar, Age 4 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. As above.

¶11

Respondent No. 2 and 3 are minor under Guardianship of respondent No. 1. ....Respondents.

¶12

Mr. P.N. Sonpethkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents.

¶13

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 17th June, 2013.

¶14

JUDGMENT :

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties heard both the sides for final disposal.

¶16

Cri. W.P. No. 1190/12

¶17

¶18

Present proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2011, which was pending in the Court of Sessions, Jalna. The Revision was filed by petitioner to challenge the judgment and order of maintenance proceedings, which was decided by J.M.F.C., Court No. 3, Jalna. Respondent No. 1 is the wife of petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are minor issues of respondent No. 1, born from the petitioner.

¶19

It appears that nobody was turning up for petitioner when the matter was taken up for hearing by the Sessions Court. As the Revision cannot be dismissed for default or non prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge decided the Revision on merits. The Revision came to be dismissed.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the fault of the counsel for petitioner, he is suffering and opportunity needs to be given to the petitioner to prosecute the matter on merits. He submitted that as there was no any stay to the execution proceeding and as some amount of maintenance is already deposited towards the arrears of maintenance, there will be no prejudice caused to the other side, if the matter is remanded back for giving an opportunity to the petitioner to argue the matter on merits. Other side has objected to it.

¶21

Cri. W.P. No. 1190/12

¶22

¶23

Today itself, this Court has allowed the application filed for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the present petitioner in the Court. This amount will be given to the present respondents. Admittedly, there is no stay to the execution proceedings and the present respondents are at liberty to recover the maintenance amount awarded by J.M.F.C. Admittedly, the Revision came to be decided in absence of the present petitioner and his advocate. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that to give an opportunity to the petitioner to argue the matter before the Sessions Court, the present proceeding can be allowed. Both the sides have undertaken to see that the decision of the Revision is expedited.

¶24

So, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order of Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2011, which was pending in the Court Sessions, Jalna is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sessions Court. Both the sides to appear before the Sessions Court on 15.7.2013. The Revision itself will be expedited by the Sessions Court and within one month from 15.7.2013.

¶25

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶26

ssc/

Devidas Suryabhan Kalyankar v. Pratibha Devidas Kalyankar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Suryabhan Kalyankar v. Pratibha Devidas Kalyankar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vikrant Developers through Sole Prop. Sanjay Bhagwandas Pati Vs Rajendra Rajaram Basaiye and Anr.

Eknath Dattu Jaware and Others Vs Gajanan Eknath Jaware and Others

Ibrahim Ismail Shaikh Vs Alishan Ibrahim Shaikh and Anr.

Machine Tools and Equipments Thr. Partners Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Deepali Sunildatta Yampure and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhanudas Uttam Vighne and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another